Shoalts: Rogers fears it overbid for NHL rights. Using cost-cutting measures

[nieuwy-89]

I'm a huge HNIC loyalist and it has been a part of my life ever since I was a young lad.

That said, I think the HNIC product has become stale over the past few years. I think CBC missed some opportunities to modernize incrementally and instead focussed on retaining the "tradition" of HNIC. The biggest example is Don Cherry. I love the guy, but even as a fan I'm tired of seeing him every week all season and then every day during the playoffs. He gets repetitive. The 2nd intermission went downhill when they dropped the satellite hotstove and went with the studio discussion format - even though I really like Friedman and Weekes.

Anyway, the point of my post is that I'm optimistic about what Rogers can do. Clearly they are putting a lot of thought into it and assembling a great team. I am excited to see the changes. The point about the Jays games is great - the Sportsnet broadcasts are fantastic. There's no reason to think they won't pull it off for national hockey broadcasts.

[Schraderbrau]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

I'm a huge HNIC loyalist and it has been a part of my life ever since I was a young lad.

That said, I think the HNIC product has become stale over the past few years. I think CBC missed some opportunities to modernize incrementally and instead focussed on retaining the "tradition" of HNIC. The biggest example is Don Cherry. I love the guy, but even as a fan I'm tired of seeing him every week all season and then every day during the playoffs. He gets repetitive. The 2nd intermission went downhill when they dropped the satellite hotstove and went with the studio discussion format - even though I really like Friedman and Weekes.

Anyway, the point of my post is that I'm optimistic about what Rogers can do. Clearly they are putting a lot of thought into it and assembling a great team. I am excited to see the changes. The point about the Jays games is great - the Sportsnet broadcasts are fantastic. There's no reason to think they won't pull it off for national hockey broadcasts.

Good post, I couldn't agree more with your comments. I really hope Rogers can find a way to do our game justice and improve on the broadcast quality where CBC seemed to be falling short.

[dustygoon]

Ya. Agree. Should be able to have some tradition and stay current. I think HNIC peaked in 2005-2010. You can keep satellite hotstove and also refresh.

[FAN]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

I really don't care for featurettes on players personal lives, as we come to like them for what they do within the profession and the game. It's hard to personally connect with these players when their lifestyles don't seem real to most viewers when it's lived on millions of dollars. I've grown up around money, but not that kind of money. Where they have vacation mansions and blonde modelesque trophy wives that are obviously just gouging their pockets. I mean, in their shoes, we'd all live the same, but how are we supposed to relate to stuff like that? I'd rather just not know those details and know them for their time spent around the rink and the game. Save the MTV cribs. Give me more hockey talk.

A lot of hate there. A lot of people like to get to know their favourite players better. And are you sure you are watching player features on NHL hockey players? Most player features I have seen focuses on how they grew up and their family: childhood photos, parents home, sibling rivalries and love, their life with wife and kids. Very identifiable stuff. As for their wives, most definitely are attractive but your generalization about how they gauge their pockets is a great disservice and sexist. Most hockey players don't grow up living in a life of luxury. Even if they come from money they don't have time to enjoy it. They have beautiful wives because they are elite athletes and women are drawn to that. But for NHL players in general, many of them marry at a young age to their high school or college sweethearts before they really came into money. I say there are more NHL players who married at a young age than those who enjoyed the rich bachelor lifestyle.

[Ro]

Anyone who had the potential of being on a Sportsnet intermission panel, besides Friedman (who it sounds like, at least according to this thread, was hired by Rogers?), is a complete waste of space anyways, so whatever.

I always loved Satellite Hotstove but in this day and age of Twitter, XM radio, podcasts, etc, news and info is always available.

[Thump]

Idiots.

Sorry, I'm drunk.

Idiotos! This seemed like a bit of a pie in the sky deal from the start. If you're going to bid you need to take into account more than "beat the other guy".

Although without NHL rights, may be worse off. Let's face it, it's kinda the only game in town in Canada.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

More national games on Rogers channels, so less games on Gamecentre Live (because they will be blacked out).

Rogers is taking over operation of Centre Ice. Are they taking control of Gamecentre as well?

If so, I really think they are cannibalizing themselves. I am very unlikely to subscribe to CI this year because of the number of 'free' games. And even though Shaw doesn't offer SN East or Ontario (yet), I doubt very much that games on those channels will not be blacked out on CI.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Blue Jays broadcast comparisions are slightly off-base because of course as the owner of the Blue Jays, Rogers, who also owns Sportsnet, doesn't actually have to pay for any broadcasting rights to Blue Jays games. So right away they are essentially at break even, so they can pay a bit more for better quality because it's not eating into the bottom line that much.

In the case of the NHL they have to earn $5.2 billion in profit in the next 12 years to simply break even. So the concerns they will nickel and dime are very legititmate, especially since they own the rights already and can (rightfully) assume even if their coverage is terrible, people will watch because they have no alternative. I don't expect it'll be significantly better than what is currently presented as they have little incentive to improve the coverage, especially if improving the coverage cuts into the bottom line.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FAN

A lot of hate there. A lot of people like to get to know their favourite players better. And are you sure you are watching player features on NHL hockey players? Most player features I have seen focuses on how they grew up and their family: childhood photos, parents home, sibling rivalries and love, their life with wife and kids. Very identifiable stuff. As for their wives, most definitely are attractive but your generalization about how they gauge their pockets is a great disservice and sexist. Most hockey players don't grow up living in a life of luxury. Even if they come from money they don't have time to enjoy it. They have beautiful wives because they are elite athletes and women are drawn to that. But for NHL players in general, many of them marry at a young age to their high school or college sweethearts before they really came into money. I say there are more NHL players who married at a young age than those who enjoyed the rich bachelor lifestyle.

I'll be honest: I found most jocks in high school to be d-bags. NHL prospects are the uber-jocks of the bunch. Especially these days when they focus 24/7, 12 months a year on becoming elite hockey players. From age 10 up, they have very little real-life experience outside of being feted hockey stars.

And in Canada anyway, the elite players are increasingly drawn from the ranks of the wealthy, who can afford the enormous time and expense that goes into grooming an elite player. I'd guess the median family income of the Canadian kids drafted into the NHL this year is over $150,000. And of course they often marry young. That's because a 20-year-old soon-to-be-multi-millionaire is a great catch for an ambitious young woman.

A lot of players probably mature as they get older. So of course there are good guys in the NHL. There are also good guys working at your local Home Depot. Call my a cynic, but when I hear that a player in the NHL is remarkably down-to-earth and one of the good guys, I interpret that to mean he has the demeanor of an average person, rather than the entitled millionaire jock that most of his teammates are.

I love the game. But the less I see about the people who play it professionally, the better.

[Mike Teavee]

Any chance they sell some games back to TSN?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I like it. You gotta sell your stars. Hockey's a bit too team-oriented for the new demographic sometimes.

The NBA and NHL aren't comparable as the NBA is a star driven league and the NHL is team driven. That will never change. NBA stars for the most part are all me-me. You simply aren't going to see Crosby as a free agent stage a live network announcement on which team he is going to honor with his services. That crap doesn't fly in the NHL and never will.

I endorse more colorful athletes in the NHL that aren't afraid to give more than a cliché interviews and all but it will be a cold day in hell when top NHL players conduct themselves like LeBron James. He's a total embarrassment IMO and is the prime example of all that is wrong with professional sports. Lets not forget the NBA has as much or more empty seats league wide than the NHL as the only thing it has on the NHL is a bigger US TV deal and that's simply never going to change even if guy like Crosby and Stamkos make jack asses of themselves outside of the rink to make headlines like many of these NBA stars. The NBA needs to sell the big names to cover up for a mediocre product. The NHL doesn't need to do that as it fills seats based on the product.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Mike Teavee

Any chance they sell some games back to TSN?

Ha ha. Not very likely.